Lesbian couple in gay marriage case p...

Lesbian couple in gay marriage case prepares for Supreme Court decision

There are 1581 comments on the Fox News story from Mar 24, 2013, titled Lesbian couple in gay marriage case prepares for Supreme Court decision. In it, Fox News reports that:

Big change is coming to the lives of the lesbian couple at the center of the fight for same-sex marriage in California no matter how the Supreme Court decides their case.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox News.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1692 Aug 31, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it simply means that our marriages and families receive equal protection under the law.
Please elaborate. So can any one demand the state declare their consenting adult relationship, "marriage", and thus receive "equal protection under the law"?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1693 Aug 31, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it simply means that our marriages and families receive equal protection under the law. Not too hard to understand.
What about theses families?

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/sister-wi...

Kody Brown, 44, and his four sister wives -- Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn -- can now have a legal marriage in their home state of Utah.

"It is with a great pleasure this evening that I can announce the final decision of United States District Court Judge Clarke Waddoups on the last remaining count in the Sister Wives case," Brown's attorney, Jonathan Turley, started off on his blog yesterday.

The Browns, stars of the show "Sister Wives," had been embroiled in a polygamy law case that had forced them away from their home. Turley said Waddoups had previously struck down "key portions" of the Utah polygamy law as unconstitutional, but that one item, Section 1883, remained.

"He has now ruled for the Browns in what is now a clear sweep on all counts," he wrote about the section "that state officials (notably prosecutor Jeffrey R. Buhman) violated the constitutional rights of the Brown family in years of criminal investigation and public accusations."

"With the earlier decision, families like the Browns can now be both plural and legal in the state of Utah," he added. "The court specifically struck down language criminalizing cohabitation -- the provision that is used to prosecute polygamists.... Judge Waddoups reaffirmed the independence of our courts and stood against open prejudice and hostility toward plural families."

After the win was announced, Brown gave his lawyer a statement to post that read, "While we know that many people do not approve of plural families, it is our family and based on our religious beliefs. Just as we respect the personal and religious choices of other families, we hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs."

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes told ABC News via a statement his office is determining whether to appeal the ruling.

"The attorney general's office is currently reviewing Judge Waddoups' ruling of Brown v. Herbert and will make final determination of whether or not to appeal one or more of the issues in the decision within the coming weeks," the statement read. "It is important to legally assess the ruling's scope and how it will impact future litigation."

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1694 Sep 1, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Please elaborate. So can any one demand the state declare their consenting adult relationship, "marriage", and thus receive "equal protection under the law"?
Sure, any citizen can exercise their constitutional right to petition government to redress their grievances, including filing a lawsuit claiming an equal protection violation related to marriage. It doesn't mean, however, they will always be successful in such legal claims.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1695 Sep 1, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
What about theses families?
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/sister-wi...
Kody Brown, 44, and his four sister wives -- Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn -- can now have a legal marriage in their home state of Utah.
"It is with a great pleasure this evening that I can announce the final decision of United States District Court Judge Clarke Waddoups on the last remaining count in the Sister Wives case," Brown's attorney, Jonathan Turley, started off on his blog yesterday.
The Browns, stars of the show "Sister Wives," had been embroiled in a polygamy law case that had forced them away from their home. Turley said Waddoups had previously struck down "key portions" of the Utah polygamy law as unconstitutional, but that one item, Section 1883, remained.
"He has now ruled for the Browns in what is now a clear sweep on all counts," he wrote about the section "that state officials (notably prosecutor Jeffrey R. Buhman) violated the constitutional rights of the Brown family in years of criminal investigation and public accusations."
"With the earlier decision, families like the Browns can now be both plural and legal in the state of Utah," he added. "The court specifically struck down language criminalizing cohabitation -- the provision that is used to prosecute polygamists.... Judge Waddoups reaffirmed the independence of our courts and stood against open prejudice and hostility toward plural families."
After the win was announced, Brown gave his lawyer a statement to post that read, "While we know that many people do not approve of plural families, it is our family and based on our religious beliefs. Just as we respect the personal and religious choices of other families, we hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs."
Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes told ABC News via a statement his office is determining whether to appeal the ruling.
"The attorney general's office is currently reviewing Judge Waddoups' ruling of Brown v. Herbert and will make final determination of whether or not to appeal one or more of the issues in the decision within the coming weeks," the statement read. "It is important to legally assess the ruling's scope and how it will impact future litigation."
The Browns never sought in their lawsuit to be able to civilly marry more than one person at a time. In fact, they specifically indicated in their lawsuit that they were NOT challenging that aspect of Utah's anti-bigamy law. Instead, there sought to have the prohibition on multiple consenting adults cohabitating in a single residence declared unconstitutional. A federal judge did just that and rightfully so.

The Browns can now freely cohabitate with each other and religiously marry more than one person as they always have. However, they didn't ask nor did the judge overturn the legal prohibition on any individual having multiple concurrent civil marriages to different people. Civil polygamy is still illegal in Utah and every other state.

So tell us, stupid Peter, why didn't America's "favorite polygamous family" avoid challenging prohibitions on civil polygamy when you constantly whine on their behalf?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1696 Sep 1, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, any citizen can exercise their constitutional right to petition government to redress their grievances, including filing a lawsuit claiming an equal protection violation related to marriage. It doesn't mean, however, they will always be successful in such legal claims.
There shouldn't have to be a lawsuit filed. After all if what Quest wrote:
Quest wrote:
No, it simply means that our marriages and families receive equal protection under the law.
Is true, then it stand to reason other alternative relationship families should also "receive equal protection under law".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1697 Sep 1, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The Browns never sought in their lawsuit to be able to civilly marry more than one person at a time. In fact, they specifically indicated in their lawsuit that they were NOT challenging that aspect of Utah's anti-bigamy law. Instead, there sought to have the prohibition on multiple consenting adults cohabitating in a single residence declared unconstitutional. A federal judge did just that and rightfully so.
The Browns can now freely cohabitate with each other and religiously marry more than one person as they always have. However, they didn't ask nor did the judge overturn the legal prohibition on any individual having multiple concurrent civil marriages to different people. Civil polygamy is still illegal in Utah and every other state.
So tell us, stupid Peter, why didn't America's "favorite polygamous family" avoid challenging prohibitions on civil polygamy when you constantly whine on their behalf?
Tsk tsk, silly Terry, the point is, the polygamist have as much right to have marriage redefined for them, as the "nice gay folks" do. It's all part of the same marriage redefinition movement seeking to abolish the sole legal definition of marriage as a union of ONE man AND ONE woman as husband and wife.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1698 Sep 1, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
There shouldn't have to be a lawsuit filed.
In an ideal world, no. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact gays had to file a lawsuit in order to exercise the fundamental right of marriage n a manner congruent with their sexual orientation. And blacks before them had to file lawsuits to get segregation and anti-miscegenation laws overturned.
Pietro Armando wrote:
After all if what Quest wrote is true, then it stand to reason other alternative relationship families should also "receive equal protection under law".
And if they feel they aren't receiving equal protection of the law, they can exercise their constitutional right to petition government to redress that grievance. After all, ins spite of your incessant whining about the "plight" of polygamists, you aren't willing to help them because you just use them for the sake of argument and really don't give a f*ck about them.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1699 Sep 1, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Tsk tsk, silly Terry, the point is, the polygamist have as much right to have marriage redefined for them, as the "nice gay folks" do. It's all part of the same marriage redefinition movement seeking to abolish the sole legal definition of marriage as a union of ONE man AND ONE woman as husband and wife.
Actually, the point is the Brown's had every opportunity to challenge the prohibition against civil polygamy and yet declined to do so. Since you and Frankie aren't willing to help them in spite of your incessant wining about their "plight" and polygamists themselves appear to have no inclination to challenge the constitutionality of anti-bigamy laws, it doesn't look like civil polygamy will be legal any time soon.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#1703 Jul 1, 2015
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Marriage equality" is Orwellian newspeak uttered by those attempting to equate a same sex relationship with the union of husband AND wife.
<quoted text>
It ain't over yet...not till the fat lady...SCOTUS sings!
She sang, Petey. The old broad sang in a major way.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1704 Jul 2, 2015
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>She sang, Petey. The old broad sang in a major way.
Bring on the Montana trio!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1705 Jul 2, 2015
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Bring on the Montana trio!
I see Petey got a new toy......good for you. The marriage application will be denied as bigamy is still illegal and though I do wish the trio luck on their journey, it is NOT going to change the current legal stance on bigamy nor plural marriages.......but it is a start......and nothing else.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1707 Jul 2, 2015
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I see Petey got a new toy......good for you.
A www.....Nor Callie made me laugh!:)
The marriage application will be denied as bigamy is still illegal and though I do wish the trio luck on their journey, it is NOT going to change the current legal stance on bigamy nor plural marriages.......but it is a start......and nothing else.
Ya gotta love it! Ya just can't make this stuff up........hmmmmmmm.....thats not quite true, the Feeling Five made up a right for "same sex marriage". Remember, you can't have "marriage equality" without polygamy!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1708 Jul 2, 2015
Pietro Armando wrote:
the Feeling Five made up a right for "same sex marriage".
Again, SCOTUS ruled 14 times before last Friday that Marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL right, they NEVER stated it was ONLY a Fundamental right if one married someone of the opposite gender........so, the right has ALWAYS existed, States made it an issue when they placed UNCONSTITUTIONAL restrictions on that right like gender......NO where has there EVER been a right to marry multiple individuals!!!

Now, a NEW right to marry multiple individuals could happen, but it's hard to get NEW rights passed......time will tell though and I do wish the Collier's luck in their pursuit for that right.
Frankie Rizzo

Fresno, CA

#1709 Jul 2, 2015
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, SCOTUS ruled 14 times before last Friday that Marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL right, they NEVER stated it was ONLY a Fundamental right if one married someone of the opposite gender........so, the right has ALWAYS existed, States made it an issue when they placed UNCONSTITUTIONAL restrictions on that right like gender......NO where has there EVER been a right to marry multiple individuals!!!
Now, a NEW right to marry multiple individuals could happen, but it's hard to get NEW rights passed......time will tell though and I do wish the Collier's luck in their pursuit for that right.
So the right always existed for you but not for me. Priceless. The right to a poly marriage existed until Christians decided it was immoral in the late 1800s due to their hate against Mormons. SSM was unheard of then.

You have a big problem. Marriage is a fundamental right. That means polygamy is a fundamental right. You not only freed yourself you freed others too even though you didn't want to. That's the nature of equal rights. Equal for you, equal for polygamists too. cha cha cha.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1710 Jul 2, 2015
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
So the right always existed for you but not for me.
Marriage is a fundamental right. That means polygamy is a fundamental right. You not only freed yourself you freed others too even though you didn't want to. That's the nature of equal rights. Equal for you, equal for polygamists too. cha cha cha.
Rizzo, you have the same right I do or ANY other American has to marry ONE other person regardless of gender.......there has NEVER been a right to marry multiple individuals......is that legal? Probably as long as the States can give a compelling reason as to why marrying multiple individuals is a burden on the States and that compelling reason or interest can pass rationale review........does that mean a RIGHT to multiple marriages CAN'T happen....no, but it is a more difficult challenge than challenging the gender restrictions, which is what Gays and Lesbians did.

I have NO problem Rizzo, polygamist do.......and again no where has polygamy or multiple marriages been ruled Constitutional. There seems to be some other clear issues that the Collier's in Montana will have to over come besides the moral issue as you claim. Either way, I seriously do wish them luck on their quest.

History on polygamy and some other issues as well
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S.(8 Otto.) 145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment. Reynolds was the first Supreme Court opinion to address the Impartial Jury and the Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment.

The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.

The New York Times defended the decision, noting that the 1862 act that banned bigamy, though "obviously directed at the polygamous practices of the Mormons, merely extended over the Territories the common law in relation to bigamy which exists in every State of the Union." Its editorial ridiculed the Mormon defense of polygamy as a religious practice and said: "Similarly, a sect which should pretend, or believe, that incest, infanticide, or murder was a divinely appointed ordinance, to be observed under certain conditions, could set up that the enforcement of the common law, as against either [sic] of these practices, was an invasion of the rights of conscience." It predicted the eventual success of the movement "to crush out polygamy in Utah."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Uni...

Here is another article as well:
http://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-64/is...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1711 Jul 3, 2015
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, SCOTUS ruled 14 times before last Friday that Marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL right,
Each ruling dealt with a case involving a man/husband and woman/wife. Each case operated from the understanding of marriage as male female monogamous Union. Certain sexual acts up until 2003, were illegal in some states. So how is it logical to claim that within those ruling that marriage was a fundamental right based on a non gender specific defintion of marriage? Here's a clue, ITS NOT!
they NEVER stated it was ONLY a Fundamental right if one married someone of the opposite gender......
Which is physically impossible, not to mention possibly illegal considering certain sexual acts, including homosexual acts, were criminalized until 2003!
..so, the right has ALWAYS existed,
False! If it always existed, same sex sexual behavior would have always been legal. It wasn't.
States made it an issue when they placed UNCONSTITUTIONAL restrictions on that right like gender......
Which makes no sense, considering marriage has always understood to be a monogamous conjugal Union, at least within Western Civilization. You might as well argue marriage itself is unconstitutional.
NO where has there EVER been a right to marry multiple individuals!!!
There's never been a right to "marry" someone of the same sex, because marriage was never defined as a non gender specific Union! So if a court, judges, or judges can invent a right to "same sex marriage", the can certainly invent a right to polygamous marriage.
Now, a NEW right to marry multiple individuals could happen, but it's hard to get NEW rights passed......time will tell though and I do wish the Collier's luck in their pursuit for that right.
Most of the hard work in redefining marriage has already been done, now it's up to the courts to carry "marry equality" to its next logical level.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#1712 Jul 3, 2015
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Each ruling dealt with a case involving a man/husband and woman/wife. Each case operated from the understanding of marriage as male female monogamous Union. Certain sexual acts up until 2003, were illegal in some states. So how is it logical to claim that within those ruling that marriage was a fundamental right based on a non gender specific defintion of marriage? Here's a clue, ITS NOT!
<quoted text>
Which is physically impossible, not to mention possibly illegal considering certain sexual acts, including homosexual acts, were criminalized until 2003!
<quoted text>
False! If it always existed, same sex sexual behavior would have always been legal. It wasn't.
<quoted text>
Which makes no sense, considering marriage has always understood to be a monogamous conjugal Union, at least within Western Civilization. You might as well argue marriage itself is unconstitutional.
<quoted text>
There's never been a right to "marry" someone of the same sex, because marriage was never defined as a non gender specific Union! So if a court, judges, or judges can invent a right to "same sex marriage", the can certainly invent a right to polygamous marriage.
<quoted text>
Most of the hard work in redefining marriage has already been done, now it's up to the courts to carry "marry equality" to its next logical level.
It's up to the 'polygamist' to carry it to the court (USSC). Only then we will see what happens.
tony_hyy

Hockessin, DE

#1716 Jul 10, 2015
Very glad this decision has changed America for the better. I grew up in a same sex headed household and couldn't be happier. One of my mom's is no longer with us, but I know she would be happy to realize that the country she called home now fully recognizes us as a family.
Darwin

Mililani, HI

#1717 Jul 10, 2015
I guess the fight moves on to the curing of Homosexuality, since choice is not a factor in being gay and thus one must be born that way thus ending the debate of nature for nurture according to the Homosexuals. It is then reliant on Human scientists to launch a global research goal of curing this genetic mutation of the human race.

After all, if there was a cure or even a way to prevent a child in womb from becoming gay later on in life, I think people would pay good money for such a cure or entire governments paying money for such a cure/vaccine.
darwin

Miami, FL

#1718 Jul 15, 2015
lecky

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 min Freespirit8 387,836
News Clinton hits Trump in 1st Spanish-language ad 1 min Denny CranesPlace 31
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 11 min Nostrilis Waxmoron 1,394,580
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 24 min 2all 216,497
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Into The Night 60,022
News Asians, many out of shame, not seeking U.S. dep... 1 hr Synque 25
News The View that Putin's Advisor Has on Obama's Uk... (Nov '14) 1 hr Tm clm 5,990
More from around the web